Academy Awards: Will viewers tune in for new format?

Mar. 6, 2010

This year's Oscar telecast will be presented at 5 p.m. on ABC. / AP

Written by

Jay Brissenden

Special to the Reno Gazette-Journal

When it's on

The Oscars begin at 5:30 p.m. today on ABC.

More

ADVERTISEMENT

During the opening credits of the 2009 superhero blockbuster "Watchmen," Bob Dylan poetically sings, "For the times, they are a-changin'." Though "Watchmen" was forgotten come this year's awards season, the times are changing for the Oscars.

Last year's best picture-nominated films were critically loved and little else. Sure, the sweeping adventure tale "Slumdog Millionaire" and star-driven "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" garnered some attention, but box office receipts show that audiences largely ignored such hard-hitting dramas as "Frost/Nixon," "Milk" and "The Reader."

In fact, those last three nominees combined did not make what 2009 best picture nominee "Up in the Air" has raked in so far. Add the more than $700 million brought in by "Avatar" and another $250 million from "The Blind Side," and last year's nominees barely grossed a fifth of what this year's group has raised so far.

Why the dramatic change from low-grossing nominees to blockbusters? Were Academy members replaced with casual theater patrons? Not exactly. The only thing that changed was that Oscar voters got to choose an extra five nominees.

Although the Academy says the move to 10 best picture nominees is a way to give more films a chance, it's obvious that Oscar producers want higher ratings at a time when fewer and fewer people are watching the telecast.

"Having 10 best picture nominees is going to allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories, but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize," Academy President Sid Ganis said last June when announcing the change.

But looking beyond that politically correct wording, the real reasoning seems to be that doubling the number of nominees also increases the number of moviegoers who have seen them. That, the Academy hopes, will give more people a reason to tune in tonight and root for their favorite flicks.

In the 1990s, the Oscar telecasts drew an average 45.7 million viewers, according to Nielsen Ratings. The 2000s drew significantly smaller ratings, with only 39.3 million viewers watching the awards on average. While that is still a huge number in terms of TV ratings, finales of such shows as "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" now challenge the Oscars' once unreachable viewership.

(Page 2 of 3)

So the question becomes whether ratings will increase just because of the expanded field.

Random interviews with 50 customers at a local video store last weekend suggest the strategy could have impact.

Sixty percent of those questioned said they never watch the Oscars, while 30 percent said they regularly do. Another 10 percent said their decision on whether to watch the show depends on the nominees.

Reno resident Ed McKiddie is part of the 60 percent who do not set aside three and a half hours to watch the show.

McKiddie said he appreciates the inclusion of more popular movies among best picture nominees, "but the show, and speeches especially, are just too long."

Recognizing that the length is another factor affecting viewership, Oscar producers have been playing with the show's format. Last year, for example, presenters announced winners in multiple categories. This year, Oscar producers Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic have cut the performances of the Best Song nominees from the broadcast.

Another challenge the Academy faces is creating appeal for viewers of all ages.

"Old people like me watch the Oscars," University of Nevada, Reno film professor Howard Rosenberg said. "I don't know if young people care that much."

When asked whether or not they watched the Oscars, several UNR students said they do not. Of those interviewed, most students said they watch plenty of movies but don't have enough time or incentive to sit through the show, even if they have seen many of the nominees.

"Even if I did have the time, there is other stuff on TV that is much more appealing," UNR economics major Michael Rea said.

Rosenberg also blamed the over saturation of awards shows for the decline in viewers.

"In the '50s, that's all there was, so everyone cared," Rosenberg said of the Oscars.

With the Golden Globes, Critics Choice, and Hollywood guild awards before the Oscars, Rosenberg said many people are just burnt out on seeing awards handed out come Oscar time.

Film critic and former deputy director of the Nevada Film Office Robin Holabird said she feels mixed on how these changes will affect the prestige of the Oscars.

(Page 3 of 3)

"Whoever wins Best Picture would have won Best Picture anyway," Holabird said. "The prestige will be there, possibly even more so since the winner will have defeated nine other films to get there."

On the other hand, there are Academy members who have been quoted complaining that the changes do not help, but only hinder the show. With 10 Best Picture nominees also came the introduction of the preferential voting process.

Instead of simply designating a top choice, voters now must rank all 10 from first to last.

"It's useless," said Academy member Jim Aicholtz, a former re-recording sound mixer. "There weren't even 10 pictures worthy of a nomination."

When Aicholtz sent in his final ballot, he said he only ranked the pictures he thought worthy of calling the year's best instead of listing them all just for the sake of it.

"(The preferential voting system) is too confusing," Aicholtz said. "It's like the electoral system where if someone gets the popular vote, they may not necessarily win."

Whether the attempt to draw more viewers works or not, the Oscars are still the Oscars. They are still the highest honor anyone involved in the filmmaking process can receive.

"Half the fun of the Oscars is knowing that some people are going to be pissed with the outcome no matter what," Rosenberg said.

"' Jay Brissenden is a University of Nevada, Reno journalism student and film writer.